Skip to main content

Full text of "Annual Evaluation Report Fiscal Year 1984"

See other formats


106-2

B.    Progress and Accomplishments;

o Regarding the first objective listed above, there was a 5.3% decrease in
the number of SEA awards made between FY 1983 and 1984. The reason for the
decrease is because four States that received awards in FY 83 in the areas
of race and/or national origin did not meet the program's criteria in FY
1984.

o Each DAC included in its new application package a strategy to meet the
objective of strengthening cooperation between the DACs and SEAs.

C.  Cost, Benefits, and Effectiveness

Grants Awarded: The following table presents data on Fiscal Year 1984 Title IV
awards (E.I).

Table 1

Category

Race
DAC
SEA

Sex

DAC
SEA

National Origin
DAC
SEA
TOTAL

Total

Appli-  Total

cations  Awards

22

33

16
44

13
35

17
30

12
44

11
32

Percent of

Applicants

Funded

77
91

75
100

85
91.

Total
Obligation

$ 4,521,853
4,533,224

2,555,984
3,935,004

2,922,163

5,531,772

$24,000,000

Average
Award

$265,991
151,107

212,998
89,432

265,651
172,868

In Fiscal Year 1984, 146 awards were made. Of these, 106 were to SEAs and
40 were to DACs. Approximately $14 million was used for grants to SEAs and
$10 million for grants to DACs. Because of litigation in the case United
States of America v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, the Title~T?
program received $3.1 million of the FY 1984 funds and $20.9 million of the
FY 1985 funds to support FY 1984 desegregation activities. At such time as
the Federal District Court releases the frozen FY 1984 funds, accounting
adjustments will be made so that the 1985 Title IV awards can be made.

Typ
rel

>es. of Assistance;    SEAs   and   DACs   provided   technical   assistance   in   areas

ating to desegregation on the basis of race, sex, and national origin such
as assisting in the preparation and adoption of race desegregation plans, in
the development of programs to Increase understanding of public school personnel
concerning the problems of sex bias, and in the development of instructional
programs for students whose dominant language is not English.

D.   Plans for Program Improvement and Recommendations for Legislation

The Department   will    continue   to   emphasize    capacity-building   within    SEAs.Department lacks good information on how or whether LEAs are